Central Information Commission
Gopal Kansara vs Medical Council Of India on 14 November, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/MEDCI/A/2018/168593-BJ+
CIC/MEDCI/A/2018/168594-BJ
Mr. Gopal Kansara
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Medical Council of India,
Pocket 14, Sector -8, Dwarka Phase - I
New Delhi - 110077
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2019
Date of Decision : 13.11.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/MEDCI/A/2018/168593-BJ Date of RTI application 25.08.2018 24.01CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 04.10.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.11.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 regarding the complete details of the Management Quota approved by the MCI for all Private Colleges/ Universities for the MBBS Course for all States/ UTs during the mentioned in the RTI application alongwith the fee structure/ fee hike approved for the Management Quota, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/MEDCI/A/2018/168594-BJ
Date of RTI application 26.08.2018
24.01CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 04.10.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.11.2018
Page 1 of 3
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the guidelines issued by the MCI regarding teaching of Medicine Course/ Studies in Private Medical Colleges/ Universities; details of the amendments made to the guidelines from time to time, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Gopal Kansara through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Shikhar Ranjan, Law Officer;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was not received by him in both the matters. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that vide their letters/ correspondences dated 28.11.2018 and 05.12. 2018, the CPIO/ FAA had provided a response to the RTI applications/ First Appeals in both the cases. Since the Appellant denied the receipt of the aforementioned replies, the Commission instructed the Respondent to forward another copy of the same expeditiously.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 2 of 3
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to forward another set of correspondences made by them in both the matters to the Appellant through speed post within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 13.11.2019
Page 3 of 3